[TheVrist]

I meant to post this in the new sub-section below but oh well.

Reason I posted it, because it just strikes me odd how in the past couple of decades, collectively the left has been pushing "God out of Laws", and in doing so, they demonize Christianity as a whole.

People are ready to hang some Christian nut-bag, because she refused to marry a couple of whiny ****, trying to be crusaders to press a point. It is all over national TV, for weeks, to try and use her as a poster-child to expose to the nation, what nut-bags God fearing Christians can be. (I agree, some can be a strange mind-set).

On a flip side, are we practicing a double standard here? If ole phil here was saying: "We need to help Europe's migration crisis, because Christians are in danger" The left would be all on his nuts, chastising him for trying to force laws based on religion lada da. But him, as a republican, saying we should support Israel, because it is Gods home, gets cricket responses.

As an Atheist, someone help me understand, why our country is being selective on which God loving fairy in the sky nut-bags we are catering to.

I personally lump them all, cut from the same cloth, just recognize that they carry different philosophies, politically.

God is "Jewish" flesh..

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

I meant to post this in the new sub-section below but oh well.


Reason I posted it, because it just strikes me odd how in the past couple of decades, collectively the left has been pushing "God out of Laws", and in doing so, they demonize Christianity as a whole.

People are ready to hang some Christian nut-bag, because she refused to marry a couple of whiny ****, trying to be crusaders to press a point. It is all over national TV, for weeks, to try and use her as a poster-child to expose to the nation, what nut-bags God fearing Christians can be. (I agree, some can be a strange mind-set).

On a flip side, are we practicing a double standard here? If ole phil here was saying: "We need to help Europe's migration crisis, because Christians are in danger" The left would be all on his nuts, chastising him for trying to force laws based on religion lada da. But him, as a republican, saying we should support Israel, because it is Gods home, gets cricket responses.

As an Atheist, someone help me understand, why our country is being selective on which God loving fairy in the sky nut-bags we are catering to.

I personally lump them all, cut from the same cloth, just recognize that they carry different philosophies, politically.

Religious doctrine has no place in political policy.

If Phil was advocating what you said, I'd think it was equally ridiculous.

The bigger issue is who's religious views are being pandered too? Who's views are constantly being pushed into secular laws? Christians are the ones attempting to push their shit into law, schools, and anywhere else they can.

Then you have right wing politicians running to the aid of a Government employee that is refusing to do her job based on her religious views. That isn't a case of some gay "crusaders", it's an issue of a woman refusing to uphold the law in favour of her own religious views.
I guess everyone should just leave her be and respect her "freedom of religion"?

And I guess everyone would feel the same way about a Muslim man refusing to issue a driving licence to a woman.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Religious doctrine has no place in political policy.

If Phil was advocating what you said, I'd think it was equally ridiculous.

The bigger issue is who's religious views are being pandered too? Who's views are constantly being pushed into secular laws? Christians are the ones attempting to push their shit into law, schools, and anywhere else they can.

Then you have right wing politicians running to the aid of a Government employee that is refusing to do her job based on her religious views. That isn't a case of some gay "crusaders", it's an issue of a woman refusing to uphold the law in favour of her own religious views.
I guess everyone should just leave her be and respect her "freedom of religion"?

And I guess everyone would feel the same way about a Muslim man refusing to issue a driving licence to a woman.

Considering your textual tone about the silly woman, you totally focused on that, over shooting into the forest, missing the trees.

Guess that is how media does drive our emotional opinion.

(edit to add: don't take that statement the wrong way, it's not an attack whatsoever)

[Pink.]

God is jewish flesh....even according to christians even muslims , and jews, yazidis, etc.....Jews built the Kaaba at Makkah giving Muslims the CONNECTION TO THEIR HATED JEWS.

Yet....that being said, THAT MAN is a blithering idiot. I know HIM. I know that family from political meetings, community meetings...thomgs my family (the older ones) participated in the past and it was semi mandatory back when I was a teen.

This is par for the course. This is LOUISIANA Bobby Jindal has his PRAYER MEETINGS AT LSU STADIUM.....which are really POLITICAL RALLIES IN DISGUISE.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Pink. ↗

God is jewish flesh....even according to christians even muslims , and jews, yazidis, etc.....Jews built the Kaaba at Makkah giving Muslims the CONNECTION TO THEIR HATED JEWS.

Yet....that being said, THAT MAN is a blithering idiot. I know HIM. I know that family from political meetings, community meetings...thomgs my family (the older ones) participated in the past and it was semi mandatory back when I was a teen.

This is par for the course. This is LOUISIANA Bobby Jindal has his PRAYER MEETINGS AT LSU STADIUM.....which are really POLITICAL RALLIES IN DISGUISE.

Yeah, I'm, not disputing what their scriptures say. I dispute a double standard of supporting one group, while collectively destroying another...

To me, it would seem, in order to separate church and state, we should do it all across the board.

If we're going to attack people, for trying to push laws based on religious beliefs, we should attack them across the board, as well.

[Pink.]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Yeah, I'm, not disputing what their scriptures say. I dispute a double standard of supporting one group, while collectively destroying another...

To me, it would seem, in order to separate church and state, we should do it all across the board.

If we're going to attack people, for trying to push laws based on religious beliefs, we should attack them across the board, as well.

Unfortunately, the separation of church and state is always going to be a bone of contention here.

POLITICS and RELIGION will always merge on some level....Political beliefs, ideals and creeds all actually incubate WITHIN THE BELIEFS(...call it piritual....call it moral....call it religious...call it atheism...it will be one or another) of the politicians and their constituents.

The USA however was founded on freedoms. Freedom OF RELIGION being included.
The confuson is that people dont understand that THIS INCLUDES FREEDOM TO NOT HAVE RELIGION as well.

For some reason, it wasnt necessary to have that clause written into englands law. I dont understand why, but I do believe those people are able to keep it straight.

[Pink.]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Yeah, I'm, not disputing what their scriptures say. I dispute a double standard of supporting one group, while collectively destroying another...

To me, it would seem, in order to separate church and state, we should do it all across the board.

If we're going to attack people, for trying to push laws based on religious beliefs, we should attack them across the board, as well.

Unfortunately, the separation of church and state is always going to be a bone of contention here.

POLITICS and RELIGION will always merge on some level....Political beliefs, ideals and creeds all actually incubate WITHIN THE BELIEFS(...call it piritual....call it moral....call it religious...call it atheism...it will be one or another) of the politicians and their constituents.

The USA however was founded on freedoms. Freedom OF RELIGION being included.
The confuson is that people dont understand that THIS INCLUDES FREEDOM TO NOT HAVE RELIGION as well.

For some reason, it wasnt necessary to have that clause written into englands law. I dont understand why, but I do believe those people are able to keep it straight.

[TheVrist]

POLITICS and RELIGION will always merge on some level

Pretty much both sides, at the extreme levels are religious based. Needless to say, picking a side, going full on could just simply be serving one Religious ruling group over another. You don't even need to have a faith base title to it's laws either.

There will never be full separation of church and state, there will or can be a switch of churches, however.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Considering your textual tone about the silly woman, you totally focused on that, over shooting into the forest, missing the trees.

Guess that is how media does drive our emotional opinion.

(edit to add: don't take that statement the wrong way, it's not an attack whatsoever)

Is it the fault of the person breaking the law, or the person pointing out that someone is breaking the law?

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Is it the fault of the person breaking the law, or the person pointing out that someone is breaking the law?

It's the emotional attachment behind the injustice of the act, and the persecution severity out-weighting the damage done.

While on the other end of the pendulum, we pass laws that supports death, destruction, and wars while supporters rage on that it is a "Godly" purpose.

Catch the drift